Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 76264-12-24 Hapoel Be’er Sheva Football Club v. Israel Football Association - part 9

Hapoel Be'er Sheva emphasizes that the only way to deviate from the referee's report is to interrogate the referee who plays on the report, and when no such investigation has been conducted, a factual determination contrary to what is determined in the referee's report is an exceedance of authority.

33. Hapoel Be'er Sheva refers to case No. 113960, in which it was determined that it is not possible to interfere with the match referee's decision to continue the game.  Hapoel Be'er Sheva also refers to the decision of the Association's Supreme Court in Case No.  103279 regarding a match between Hapoel Ramat Gan and Bnei Sakhnin.  According to her, in the same incident, there was a fight between a fan and a Hapoel Ramat Gan player, following which the Ramat Gan players refused to go up to the field and continue the game.  The court ruled that Ramat Gan should have complied with the judge's orders, as appears from the judge's report, and therefore awarded it a technical loss.
34. The decision contradicts the rules of natural justice:
35. Another claim of Hapoel Be'er Sheva in the statement of claim is also related to the judge's report, which is that when the judicial institutions ruled contrary to the judge's report, not only did they exceed their authority, but they also violated Hapoel Be'er Sheva's right to a fair trial.

According to Hapoel Be'er Sheva, it relied on what was stated in the referee's report, and if it had known that the Association's judicial institutions intended to deviate from it, it would have asked to investigate the referee.

1. The failure to convict Bnei Sakhnin of the offense of refusing to play a game prevented Hapoel Be'er Sheva from a fair trial:
2. Hapoel Be'er Sheva also claims that due to a mistake, Bnei Sakhnin was not convicted of the offense of refusing to hold a game. In this regard, Hapoel Be'er Sheva clarifies that the decision of the Disciplinary Court indicates that there was room to convict Bnei Sakhnin of this offense, and only because of a clerical error was she not convicted.
3. From here, Hapoel Be'er Sheva argues that there is a double implication of this error on it. First, if Bnei Sakhnin had been convicted of this offense, it might have had an impact on the case of Hapoel Be'er Sheva as well.  Second, this erroneous acquittal created an imbalance in the penalties incurred by the teams, especially in the matter of deducting a point from Hapoel Be'er Sheva's balance sheet, as opposed to not deducting a point from the balance sheet of Bnei Sakhnin.
4. The decision to set the result of the game at 0:0 without points is extremely unreasonable:
5. Hapoel Be'er Sheva claims on this issue that the penalty in the form of a 0:0 game result without points is extremely unreasonable, for two reasons. First, creating a miscarriage of justice between it and the Sakhnin people, and second, creating a dangerous precedent that allows for the performance of "self-judgment."
6. Thus, on the issue of miscarriage of justice, Hapoel Be'er Sheva claims that Bnei Sakhnin, whose fans participated in the riot, and whose players refused to go to the game, bears at the end of the matter a monetary fine only, while Hapoel Be'er Sheva bears, in addition to the fine, a potential loss of 3 points and a reduction of an additional point in practice.
7. On the level of the broad implications, Hapoel Be'er Sheva argues that the result of the ruling, in which the team that did justice to itself was not punished, has negative and serious consequences both domestically and internationally, when teams, or players, will take the liberty to refuse to go up to play due to subjective fear.
8. In addition to the above, Hapoel Be'er Sheva argues that accepting the aforementioned arguments also means the cancellation of the penalty of deduction of the point, since this reduction is based on the conclusion that Hapoel Be'er Sheva caused the game not to take place.

The Football Association's Claims

41. On February 27, 2025, the statement of defense was submitted on behalf of the Football Association.

As part of the statement of defense, the association raised two preliminary arguments regarding delay and non-joining third parties.  I will preface by noting that the association waived the claim of delay in the framework of the discussion.

42. In its statement of defense, the Association also notes the consistent and clear trend of very limited court intervention in the decisions of the Association's judicial institutions.

In particular, the association notes that the court's intervention is not an "appellate" intervention and that the court does not serve as an appellate court against the Association's judicial institutions.

43. The Association additionally addresses, one by one, the plaintiff's claims in its statement of claim as detailed below, and explains why they should be rejected.

In particular, the Association argues, with regard to the claim of deviation from authority, that indeed the decision regarding the non-holding of the game is a decision at the discretion of the match referee, but in determining that there are other factors for the non-holding of the game, there is no deviation from the referee's report, and it is certainly not a matter of deviation from the authority of the Association's judicial institutions.

44. With regard to the non-conviction of Bnei Sakhnin for the offense of refusing to play a game, the Association agrees with the plaintiff's claim that Bnei Sakhnin was not convicted of this offense by mistake, when the disciplinary court attributed such a refusal to play to her. The association explains that it did not appeal this acquittal, when in any case in the first instance the sons of Sakhnin were sentenced to the punishments requested by the association's prosecutor.

According to the Association, the failure to convict Bnei Sakhnin does not affect the outcome of the proceeding in the Hapoel Be'er Sheva case, and it refers in this matter to the determinations of Dayan Deutsch.

45. Regarding the unreasonableness of a 0:0 result without points, the Association argues that this is in accordance with what is stated in Section 12(i) of the Championship Regulations. In the opinion of the Association, when both teams are responsible for not holding the game, this is the result in accordance with the regulations and this is also the proper result, as has been ruled in many cases.
46. The Association further notes that the Supreme Court's decision has no negative implications, since all the judges made it clear that the behavior of the Bnei Sakhnin players was improper, and that they should have taken to the pitch in light of the match referee's instructions. Moreover, Bnei Sakhnin was also punished for this behavior, when the result of the game was set as 0:0 without points.
47. On the issue of deducting the point for Hapoel Be'er Sheva, the association claims that the clause that stipulates the deduction of a point due to a fan riot in aggravated circumstances was approved on July 10, 2024, and was distributed to the teams. On the merits, the IFA explains that when a causal link is established between the fans' riot and the non-holding of the game, it constitutes "aggravating circumstances" that justify lowering the point.
48. Bnei Sakhnin filed a statement of defense on its behalf, in which it joins the Football Association's claims, and sharpens various issues, in particular the severity of the riot by Hapoel Beer Sheva fans. According to Bnei Sakhnin, this was an organized riot, in which Hapoel Be'er Sheva's security forces failed, so that dozens of fans, some masked, and some carrying poles, burst onto the grass near the players.

According to Bnei Sakhnin, in these circumstances a crisis of confidence was created that did not allow the resumption of the game.

49. On March 23, 2025, a lengthy oral hearing was held, in which I heard the arguments of the parties. At the end of the hearing, the parties agreed that a judgment would be given on the basis of the pleadings and oral arguments of the parties.
50. To complete the picture, I will note that in the framework of this case, a request for temporary relief was filed on December 30, 2024, and this was rejected in a reasoned decision by the Honorable Judge Ariel Zimmerman of December 31, 2024.

Discussion and Decision